Category: Procedural

Posted on

Getting Started With CanLII, Other Court Records Searches

CanLII, the Canadian Legal Information Institute, is probably the most commonly searched index of court cases in Canada. According to its biography: “CanLII was founded and is paid for by the lawyers and notaries who are members of Canada’s provincial and territorial law societies, which comprise the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. We have also gratefully received funding for particular projects from provincial and territorial law foundations and other organizations.”

One disclaimer to add in: in certain instances records are sealed, or there may be a prohibition on publishing certain names. This is often done in sexual assault cases, young offenders cases, very high profile cases, or cases of national security. If the Judge has banned disclosing the names publicly, it’s best to honour that.

There are a few ways to search for cases. You can search by key words, or by a case citation, or you can scroll through the cases of a particular court. Beyond court files, there are also many listings of legislation across Canada, and plenty of commentary as well.

In searching through the cases, related documents and rulings cited will often come up. These can be clicked on for more information. Overall, CanLII operates as a mixture of Google and Wikipedia combined (although only a select few people can edit information).

A limitation of this site: not everything is listed. Minor issues (such as small claims), and decisions that are delivered orally are typically not posted. Nonetheless, it’s a great place to start looking for anyone. There are also Court Martial decisions, Court Martial Appeals, and tax cases available.

For the most part, CanLII is pretty thorough with its postings. Now, while it broadly covers cases across Canada, there are other databases that cover their own respective decisions. The Supreme Court of Canada has its own database, covering rulings of the Top Court. The Federal Court also posts rulings for both the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal.

With these courts (and others) people can also contact the court directly to ask for documents. Generally speaking, if the documents are in digital form, the clerks will email them for free. If not, there will likely be fees to make copies.

As for some Provincial examples, Nova Scotia posts its own decisions. It covers all levels of proceedings over there.

In Ontario, any member of the public can search online for a particular case. If the parties are known, or if they have a file number, the status and representations can be checked. If a lawyer claims to be pursuing a case — but isn’t — that will be easy to check. As for searching for decisions, Ontario links a CanLII style page, and the same search options apply.

British Columbia allows members of the public to search for cases Provincially. There is also the option to search ongoing cases, and access documents (although B.C. typically charges a fee for them).

This doesn’t cover all databases, of course. However, the point is that anyone with internet access and/or a phone can search for court cases, and Court rulings. If the person is local, they can visit the building in person. This isn’t some secret repository, and proceedings are open to the public.

One other benefit: if someone starts reporting about Court decisions (that no one has heard of), claiming that major verdicts have been reached, it’s easy to verify or refute. Unfortunately, there’s too much misinformation — either intentional or inadvertent — being spread around. Videos like this talk about secret rulings which gave everyone back their freedom. Spoiler: they don’t exist.

If the Supreme Court really handed down such a ruling as referenced above, it would be pretty easy to check. Also, wouldn’t more people have heard about it? However, far too many will accept such outlandish statements at face value.

Instead of having to just take people’s word that a certain thing happened, why not look for yourself? Find out what happened, and what was really said.

Don’t be duped.
Check things out for yourself.

Note: this isn’t meant to be an all-inclusive course on how searches work. Instead, it’s just an introduction for people curious about this sort of thing.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/info/about.html
(3) https://www.scc-csc.ca/home-accueil/index-eng.aspx/
(4) https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/nav_date.do
(5) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/home/
(6) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/en/d/s/index.do?col=54
(7) https://courts.ns.ca/
(8) https://decisia.lexum.com/nsc/en/ann.do
(9) https://www.justiceservices.jus.gov.on.ca/MyAccount/screens/OneKey/login.xhtml?lang=EN
(10) https://www.ontariocourts.ca/search-canlii/ocj-en.htm
(11) https://www.bccourts.ca/search_judgments.aspx
(12) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/partySearch.do
(13) https://twitter.com/CanLII
(14) https://twitter.com/CanLIIConnects
(15) https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZeOQnjHAXYmn/

Posted on

Getting Started With Your Own Freedom Of Information/Access To Information Requests

This article is going to be different. Instead of dropping a bunch of research, today we will get into conducting your own research. Specifically, how to go about filing freedom of information (or access to information) requests. FOI/ATI are essentially the same thing, a request for documents.

You don’t have to be a journalist, reporter, or researcher to file these requests. Anyone who is curious or concerned with what’s going on, or if they have a personal issue, can file one.

Now, this is just general information of filing such requests, and how it works. Take this article as a starting place, rather than as some gospel.

Depending on the jurisdiction and/or information sought, there may or may not be a fee. Also, the fee can go up if the the search is overly broad. As a general guideline: Government bodies will typically give a person their own information for free, but may charge for general information. Also, they typically won’t hand over SOMEONE ELSE’S private information without a signed waiver or agreement.

Depending on many factors, an FOI can take anywhere from a few days, to several months for a response. There’s no one answer for how long you will wait. Now, what will the agency you file with do?

In short, a few different outcomes can happen:
(a) Government body discloses records being sought
(b) Government body ignores or delays the request
(c) Government body admits that it has no such records
(d) Government body admits having records, but refuses to release them, for some reason. More on that later.

All 4 outcomes have happened to FOI requests from here. The success rate at getting meaningful data has (anecdotally) been about 50%. That being said, these are still a valuable tool for truth seekers. If nothing else, these are quite easy to file.

A tip for making FOI requests: write it up in such a way that it’s clear you are asking for records. You likely won’t get a helpful response if this involves open ended questions. As an example:

Instead of: “Has anyone studied the physical or psychological consequences of forcing young children to wear masks?”

Try this: “I request records of any studies involving the physical or psychological effects of forcing young children to wear masks”

This may sound nitpicky and silly, but the wording does make a difference. If records are sought on a controversial topic, this could be used as an excuse to deny it, or at least delay it.

What kinds of documents can be requested?

  • Records of meetings, minutes
  • Names of people involved in a committee, study, or research
  • Conflict of interest disclosures
  • Studies or research conducted
  • Amounts of money paid to people or groups
  • Sources of funding
  • Reports filed publicly

Now, this should be commonsense, but if you wish to post your findings, consider scrubbing — removing — your personal details beforehand. At a minimum, don’t have your address splashed all over the internet, but even your name is important.

It’s worth pointing out that filing a formal FOI request may not always be necessary. Sometimes, if the information is already posted (or easy to find), just calling or emailing the Ministry or group in question may be enough to get it sent to you.

Also, if you don’t want to pay fees, or just don’t want to wait for a formal reply, see if someone has already made a similar request. In some jurisdictions, FOI results get posted online, in order to avoid duplication. If you do find what you want (from someone else), use that data. If you’re going to publish it, go ahead. Now, their personal info shouldn’t be disclosed, however, if it is, removing it would be appreciated. Their earlier work did you a favour after all.

  • Section 12: Cabinet confidences
  • Section 13: Advice or recommendations
  • Section 14: Legal advice
  • Section 15: Harm to law enforcement
  • Section 16: Harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations
  • Section 17: Harm to financial or economic interests of a public body
  • Section 18: Harm to conservation of heritage sites
  • Section 19: Harm to individual or public safety
  • Section 20: Information to be published or released within 60 days
  • Section 21: Harm to business interests of a third party
  • Section 22: Harm to personal privacy
  • Section 22.1: Information relating to abortion services

It’s worth mentioning that Governments can (and often do) either refuse to release records, or redact parts of it. Using the BC FOIPP Act as an example, many items have exclusions (at least partially). Now, just because it’s a reason stated, doesn’t mean it’s legitimate.

When you get the results of the FOI request back, this might not be the end. There will almost always be some wording at the bottom saying that you can appeal, or request a review. Take this opportunity — especially if you’ve paid money or waited a long time — and ask for clarification on anything not understood.

As a closing thought, any readers who get something worthwhile are always welcome to submit their findings to Canuck Law. Results will be posted, with personal info removed.

P.S. Go check out Fluoride Free Peel for an extreme case on how to use FOIs to disprove a scam sprung onto the public.

ALBERTA
(a) Contact FOIP TO See If Records Already Available
(b) Service Alberta: Making A FOIP Request
(c) Alberts eServices: Make FOIP Request
(d) Freedom Of Information & Privacy Protection Act

BRITISH COLUMBIA
(a) Previously Released FOI Responses
(b) Getting Started With FOI Requests
(c) Submit General FOI Request
(d) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

MANITOBA
(a) Listings Of Previously Received FOI Requests
(b) Freedom Of Information Main Portal
(c) Freedom Of Information & Privacy Protection Act

NEW BRUNSWICK
(a) Getting Started Searching For Information
(b) List Of Bodies Subject To FOI Requests
(c) Right To Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

NEWFOUNDLAND
(a) Previously Released ATIPP Results
(b) Filing Your Own Access To Information Requests
(c) ATIPP Coordinators
(d) Access To Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
(a) ATIPP Reviews Posted
(b) ATIPP Main Page
(c) Access To Information request Forms
(d) Access To Information And Protection Act

NOVA SCOTIA
(a) Searching Previously Disclosed Access To Information Results
(b) Getting Started With Access To Information
(c) Guidelines For FOI And Privacy Requests
(d) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

NUNAVIT
(a) How To Place ATIPP Request

ONTARIO
(a) Directory Of Records
(b) Access To Information Forms
(c) Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Provincial
(d) Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Municial

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
(a) Making A Request Under FOIPP
(b) List Of Public Bodies Covered Under Act
(c) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

QUEBEC
(a) Previous ATIPP Disclosures — French Only
(b) How To Make An Access Request
(c) General Information On ATIPP
(d) Act Respecting Access to Documents Held By Public Bodies

SASKATCHEWAN
(a) Access To Information — Provincial And Municipal Acts

YUKON
(a) Searching Archives Of ATIPP Requests
(b) Access to Information Registry
(c) ATIPP Request For Access To Information
(d) ATIPP Coordinators

FEDERAL
(a) Search Existing Access To Information Requests
(b) Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Online Request
(c) Complete List Of Institutions
(d) List Of ATIP Coordinators

Posted on

No, Patrick King’s Case Didn’t Mean All Measures Ended For Alberta

The case of Patrick King v. Alberta Health Services has been all over the alternative media lately. People are now thinking this is some landmark decision against the Kenney Government. That isn’t really the case though. People are getting excited over a misunderstanding of the results. The measures remain in effect, though (update) it’s not entirely clear from the video the result of his case. He does admit later that he lost. See 53:44.

King claims that he won a court case in Alberta, and that all restrictions in the Province have been removed. On the surface, this looks fine, or at least possible.

Problem is, that isn’t what happened at all. King’s trial began on May 4, 2021. He got an adjournment so that he could subpoena Deena Hinshaw, the Chief Medical Officer of Alberta. Later, it was discovered that, although a Justice of the Peace did sign one, it required the signature of a Judge. This was a procedural error, which would make it defective in the eyes of the Court. The Crown brought an application on July 16 to quash the subpoena, with a hearing date of July 19.

King, in the May 4th trial, had tried to challenge the constitutionality of the measures themselves, but never filed a Notice of Constitutional Question. He says he didn’t know it had to be done in advance, which is quite plausible.

The Crown also claimed in their July Application that Hinshaw had no material evidence to offer, which is being taken to mean that there was no evidence at all. The Crown asserted that Hinshaw had nothing meaningful to say in this case. The Application to quash was successful.

King implies that his own $1,200 ticket was thrown out, but interestingly, the ruling isn’t posted. He later admits that he lost and had to pay, but it’s not obvious.

In fairness, King is right that the whole “pandemic” is a scam. However, the admission doesn’t mean quite what he thinks it does.

King also has a point that the Judge was supposed to help out self represented litigants, at least to a degree. The 2017 case of Pintea v. Johns made that mandatory.

Now, there’s no justification whatsoever to the assertion that King’s win had any effect on the measures in Alberta being lifted. In fact, many of them were on July 1, previous to this appearance. However, King has been making the rounds claiming that freedom has been won for Albertans by this. Stew Peters interviewed him, but did little to no due diligence first.

Also, there is still no ruling posted on CanLII, and there doesn’t seem to be a copy anywhere. Pretty strange if the Judge ended everything, but never bothered to write anything up.

King had asked for a transcript of his August hearing, to get in writing the admissions he wants. That’s fair. But the transcripts floating around are from his May 4th appearance. These are not the same things. The transcript was attached as an Exhibit in Alberta’s Application to quash.

While King claims to be self representing, it appears that he’s had some coaching from someone. And it’s interesting, King is friends with Kelly Ann Wolfe. Also, the woman at the bottom looks very familiar. Where have we seen her before?

Oh right, this is WholeHearted Media, earlier talking with her co-host, Galati. This previous video by Awake Canada speaks of non-existent Court rulings ending all measures in Canada. That hoax was only a few weeks back. Of course, when a person is asked to provide an actual ruling, there’s nothing to say.

Though unrelated to this matter, there was this floating around the other day: an obviously fake transcript of Calgary Mayor Nenshi. The King case may have been just a misunderstanding, but there’s no doubt that this one is intentional deception.

It would have been nice to see a ticket thrown out (for whatever reason), but it wasn’t. And these silly claims that all illegal measures have ended don’t help. It makes it harder to take such things seriously.

Correction: it was wrongly thought the ticket was dismissed. That has been corrected

(1) https://www.redvoicemedia.com/video/2021/08/freedom-fighter-court-victory-ends-masking-shots-quarantine-in-alberta/
(2) https://www.instagram.com/p/CSH4pTNJ3zp/
(3) https://awakening.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/05122457/transcriptofcourtcase.pdf
(4) Patrick King Application Service Of Documents
(5) Patrick King Application To Quash Subpoena
(6) https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZeOQnjHAXYmn/
(7) https://twitter.com/1777Roots/status/1423337680004206592
(8) http://www.lauralynn.tv/2021/08/dr-patrick-phillips-pat-king.html

Posted on

CPSBC Confirms No Jurisdiction To Handle Complaints Against “Public Health” Officials

In a response that should surprise no one, the CPSBC, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, has said that it has no jurisdiction to handle complaints lodged against any of its members, as long as they are acting in a “public health” capacity.

Bonnie Henry Complaint CPSBC

For some context, the typical doctor can be fined, suspended, or even lose their licenses altogether, depending on the circumstances. But doctors working as public health officials — and whose decisions impact everyone — cannot be held liable.

Of course, given that these people are appointed by politicians, there is an inherent conflict of interest. They aren’t going to be too critical of political decisions. In fact, these “top doctors” provide a level of cover for their bosses.

Then again, the CPSBC doesn’t seem to take complaints against its members too seriously, as shown in some of their recent decisions.

For more on what’s really going on in Canada, check out the CV series, and the one on health in Canada.

(1) https://www.cpsbc.ca/
(2) https://www.cpsbc.ca/about-us/annual-report
(3) https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/pdf/2020-21-AR-Disciplinary-Outcomes.pdf

Posted on

Maxime Bernier Encourages His Own Father To Get Vaxxed, “Party” Is A Honeypot


https://www.facebook.com/MarkFriesenPPC/videos/484489856099591/
(Around the 30 minute mark)

Is this the “true opposition” party that some people love to talk about? Bernier claims he opposes lockdowns but still supports vaccinating people with God knows what. He even recommends it for his own father. He still (publicly) buys into the narrative, but only objects to the loss of civil rights.

Bernier will also never address the bigger picture. Even if one rejects the depopulation agenda, this “pandemic” is undeniably well planned and coordinated, with much of it being laid out in advance. He won’t get into any of the collusion, the groups making money, the banks, or the lobbying and corruption within domestic politics. Criticism is deliberately done at a superficial level.

This is how a honeypot works. Get someone who appears to be saying the right things — but who won’t tell the complete truth — and pour energy and money into it. Draw out and identify actual patriots, and ensure they will never have any kind of power. Sadly, Canadians are pumping money into them, without asking any hard questions. There’s at least a few of them going around.

People’s Party of Canada
Formed September 2018
-Led by ex-Harper crony
-No leadership race
-No policy votes
-No constitution
-No governing documents
-No national council
-Platform recycled from 2017 “LibCon” race
-EDAs being shut down for not filing financials

Maverick Party (formerly WExit)
Formed after 2019 election
-Led by ex-Harper crony
-No leadership race
-No policy votes
-No constitution
-No governing documents
-Platform in the works (though very recently there was nothing)

When WExit was renamed Maverick, there was a shifting of the goalposts. Instead of outright demanding Western independence, the goal became promoting Western interests within Canada. Perhaps “WExit” was just a temporary name in order to draw donations.

Interestingly, Maverick makes it clear they have no interest in getting involved in Provinces shutting down civil rights, even though the ability to do this was based on the FEDERAL declaration of there being an emergency. Much like the CPC, they mainly criticize the implementation of Trudeau’s tyranny.
Maverick Covid Statement

It’s also worth pointing out that both Hill and Bernier voted to screw over the West on equalization back when Harper was in Office. Jason Kenney did as well.

New Blue Ontario
Formed October 2020
-No leadership race
-No policy votes
-No constitution
-No governing documents
-No platform
-No Provincial Council or some equivalent

Go to their website. It’s completely empty of meaningful content.

The Republican Party of Canada also comes across as a fake party. There is a website, with a few broad strokes of what policies would be nice, but no structure or governance.

There are other ways to control the opposition. Consider the Q-Anon “Trust The Plan” movement, designed to convince Americans that there was an operation to remove the Deep State. It’s kind of like the 1920’s “Operation Trust” to keep the Bolsheviks in power in the Soviet Union.

If chosen correctly, the right kind of person can wreck a movement by driving away normies. An obvious one is Chris (Sky) Saccoccia. While he says a lot of truthful things, the way he goes about them seems calculated to make skeptics look deranged and paranoid. Of course, the “alternative” media elevates and signal boosts him endlessly.

Additionally, those dead-end lawsuits in Toronto can be viewed the same way: an attempt to convince Canadians that something was already under way, and drastic action is not required.

Protests have been largely infiltrated by grifters like Hugs Over Masks, who use it as a business opportunity. Also, marching for an hour and then going back to lockdown doesn’t accomplish anything. Makes them an easy target for the police though.

Notable grifters include the Conservative Party of Canada, and the CCFR, Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights. Nothing says freedom quite like starting your own line of muzzles. The CCFR is particularly repulsive, claiming to want freedom for gun owners, while profiting off of (forced) mask mandates.

The CPC also has a pharma lobbyist at the head of their National Council. Much like Maverick and PPC, they object mainly to how Trudeau handles things, not the overall agenda.

Is this jaded? Maybe, but we have to face reality.

Posted on

Another Toronto Court Challenge, But Will This One Actually Go Anywhere?

There was an online announcement of a Notice of Application filed in the Toronto Branch of Ontario Superior Court, Civil Division. Predictably, it caused a buzz in the alternative media. Several commented that it was disappointing the mainstream outlets chose not to cover it.

While that is a valid point, there is another one to raise: how come other complaints have dropped off of people’s radars? There was one filed in October 2019 that is collecting dust 18 months later. There is also a high profile suit filed July 2020 with no defenses submitted almost a year later. True, there was a temporary moratorium on filing deadlines, but that lapsed September 14, 2020. There doesn’t appear to have been any attempt to either force that case ahead, or seek default judgement.

The average person may not know this, but it’s quite easy to search for a case in Ontario and see what progress, if any, has been made. If Parties aren’t even represented, that can also be found out.

Despite there being no movement in those cases, a defamation lawsuit was filed in December 2020. Interesting how actual human rights violations are worth only $11 million, but mean words on Twitter is worth $12.75 million. Perhaps there is some deeper insight that isn’t obvious.

Now, what people choose to do in their private lives is their business. That being said, when asking for donations from the public to finance a lawsuit, it’s worthwhile to ensure the money is going where it’s supposed to be.

One example last year was Action4Canada/Liberty Talk raising money for the promise of a lawsuit in B.C., against Bonnie Henry. Now, the fundraising started in September 2020 (if not earlier), so that has been 8 months now. The promised lawsuit has not materialized. Odessa Orlewicz has spoken about pocketing 25% of it.

It sounds great (on the surface) that another challenge was launched. However, it must be asked: will anything become of it? Or will it fade away, like its predecessors?

On the topic of covering court cases: it’s worth pointing out that various Libel & Slander Acts provide a number of defenses for people reporting on them. These include truth, opinion, public interest, and acting in good faith. Also, there are anti-SLAPP laws (strategic lawsuits against public participation), that ensure reporters and journalists will have a wide breadth to cover important events. For anyone wanting to publish information on court cases, this is important to know.